Tax vs. Penalty is More Than a “Mere” Argument About Semantics

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

I’ve now read about a hundred blog posts claiming that the question of whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty is “just a question of semantics.” But it’s not.

I know this seems obvious, but it is, in fact, also a legal question. And there’s all sorts of past precedent that judges can use to guide them on this question. In last week’s Obamacare decision, Chief Justice John Roberts basically said that it doesn’t matter what Congress calls the mandate; what matters is how it operates. His conclusion, based on a variety of precedent, is that the mandate is a tax because (a) it raises revenue, (b) it’s administered through the tax code, and (c) it’s fairly modest, meant to nudge rather than punish. And, as Roberts says, “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new.”

In the dissent, Scalia1 says this is horseshit. The law itself repeatedly calls it a penalty, it’s not primarily designed to raise revenue, and it is plainly designed to punish people who decline to buy insurance. “We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not,” Scalia says. “We have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.”

I don’t have any big point to make here, and I don’t have a strong opinion on the merits of this argument, which is based on legal precedent I’m unfamiliar with. (Though I’m sympathetic to Roberts’s view that the court should always bend over backwards to adopt legal readings that allow Congress to work its will if there’s any reasonable way to do it.) I just want to point out that there actually is a legal argument about this that was carried out in the pages of the Obamacare decision. This isn’t purely a matter of dictionary games.

1Technically, we don’t know who wrote the dissent. But the tax section sure sounds like Scalia, doesn’t it?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest